Re: codd's 12 Rules

On 5/17/2013 5:06 PM, Vern Hamberg wrote:

I know - go do a google search yourself, as I did - look at the various interpretations - you will see this narrow view. Not mine - just reporting. You didn't quote the bits where I said just this - that there ARE different points of view.

But this fact - that we can use DDS to generate and modify tables - this is held up by many to say that this is NOT a relational system. My friend, Dave Odom, is one who tried to tell us this. I don't always agree with him, of course.

Vern

I see this question in the exact same light I see questions like 'What
is the total number of transistors used in the Power 7?' I'm trying to
work out John's intent by asking myself what I'd do if I had The Answer.
I can't imagine what use the answer is outside of a trivia contest.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that DB2 for i violates Rule 0.
Let's also posit that DB2 LUW 10.1 violates Rule 9.
Are they both 'equally relational' because they only missed by one?
Are all the Rules equal in weight, in importance?

I don't think there is a way to manipulate the database outside the
relational facilities that can corrupt the relations. That's because
this operating system was not imagined by the good Dr Codd. We might
violate the letter of Rule 0, but I think the spirit is fully intact.
--buck

----- Original Message -----

Rule 0 may already be broken

Rule 0: The system must qualify as relational, as a database, and as a management system.


Does IBM i DB not qualify as relational? As a database? As a management system?

since there is a non-relational way to manage the database.

Isn't that a rather narrow interpretation of the rule? And a narrow interpretation of a management system?

-Nathan